Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: jh@tut.fi (Juha Heinanen) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: admd policies Message-ID: Date: 29 Dec 90 09:25:56 GMT Distribution: comp Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland. Lines: 29 Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU x-attn: jns ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU in december 10, 1990 issue of communications week international there was an article titled 'bt stands alone'. the article gives some light on who can be an admd and what an admd is supposed to do. first it says: "the term admd was originally used to describe an international telegraph and telephone consultative committee operator with authority to route domestic and international email. such a definition does not apply in deregulated telecoms market, such as the u.k. the u.k draft standard defines an admd as any value-added service operator that agrees to interconnect its services with others." then it goes on and says that british telecom opposes the draft and has been reluctant to interconnect, for example, with sprint because of competive reasons. now bt "has told sprint that it will interconnect, but only for a fee and only to private systems that have selected public uses". what can be learned fron this regarding academic email provision? to me the message is that we can and, in fact, should establish academic admds in all those countries where the local law doesn't prohibit it. in addition, we should be ready to interconnect them with as many other admds as practical. for example, the basic rule could be that we are ready to interconnect with anybody else on pier-to-pier basis provided that a flat rate network interconnection can be somehow arranged, ie. we don't want volume based bills. -- -- Juha Heinanen, Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland jh@tut.fi (Internet), tut!jh (UUCP), jh@tut (Bitnet)